Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1VBVqd-0003Wd-1g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:14:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f178.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f178.google.com ([209.85.223.178]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VBVqc-0005Tg-BX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:14:43 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id m16so346971ieq.9 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.210.147 with SMTP id gk19mr330812icb.54.1376943277049; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:14:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJHLa0MnnWw=qiYC0nJcY=BdTDcAjGtraJ+kazoG7_bHW-HBtw@mail.gmail.com> <CALxyHsXoCqL8dNXeayibfbR7-JU6Ke19gJJ1fToboULdUa155Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:14:36 +0200 Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjMdZfHpZrvHwMx6oQsS0yJaXVjTnyRwf6VCdnWTHQZaw@mail.gmail.com> From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> To: Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VBVqc-0005Tg-BX Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: remove "getwork" RPC from bitcoind X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:14:43 -0000 On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Frank F <frankf44@gmail.com> wrote: > I strongly object to removing the only mechanism that allows anyone to say > that bitcoin is p2p, in the truest sense of the word. Moves like this that > favor only the pool operators and private mining interests are signs that > bitcoin is headed towards a monopoly/cartel model, and that would be a > tragic outcome for something that holds a great promise. Nobody knows what > mining will look like in the future, and denying the individual novice the > ability to mine at a small scale, even if we may think it is inefficient > now, is not a good path to start down. > > If there are technical problems with getwork, maybe they should be addressed > and fixed instead of outright abandoned. They were addressed and fixed in a successor API, getblocktemplate. It's even more decentralization-friendly, as it allows the caller to see what transactions the daemon is trying to put into a block, and even modify it. The suggestion here is not to remove functionality - only to remove an obsolete API for doing so. -- Pieter